There's been a lot of anger at Disco Dan over in the +/- thread...and, well, some of it's justified. After a loss like that obviously that's going to happen. With all the analysis going on there I kind of want to put down my thoughts on what Bylsma does well and poorly, and why I think that's the case.
Number one: Bylsma is a pretty good motivator most of the time. I know that seems hilarious to say after how we let up after the first period, but it's true. Most of the team would go through a wall for him if he asked them to, and he does it without flipping out at people, which (hopefully) means it doesn't wear out the same way as a Hitchcock or a Therrien.
Number two: He's designed a fairly good forechecking system with a simple, albeit effective, offensive zone setup. The Pens also sort of pioneered the sort of long-pass, tip-in breakout style a lot of teams seem to be using now.
Number three: He is very good at taking AHLers and plugging them into the lineup where necessary. Sure, you can complain about Tangradi's playing time and so on but for the most part he has gotten results out of average players the last couple years.
Now, what are some things he's bad at?
Number one: Timeouts. Don't have to discuss this more.
Number two: Defensive zone system. ColePens and others have talked a ton about the more zonal system we've been using this year and how we played better with man coverage, and I agree. The zonal system gives opposing teams too much time and space on the puck and that kills us.
Number three: adjustments. The gameplan is the gameplan. We don't go out of our way to get good match-ups, we don't seem to ever change the breakout, the defensive zone setup never changes, nothing changes. It's about "playing our game" rather than playing whatever game will most likely win.
----
I think a big part of the problem is that Byslma is still new at this, and still learning. Rather than experiment, though, he seems intent on keeping the game very simple. No confusing anyone with adjustments, no timeouts, just "grind these *****es down". And when it's working well, that's fine. When it's not, though, he needs to learn when and how to adjust.
The big problem here is the D coverage, because it isn't simple. Man-to-man is much easier (and more effective when you have players like ours). So the zone doesn't just not work, it runs counter to the rest of our philosophy. I feel like that amplifies some of its deficiencies. I think it hurts a defender like Martin, whose real strength is winning the puck without significant contact, staying on his check and stifling people. The system we're running now makes that much more complicated to do.
I don't think Bylsma is a bad coach. I think he is a good coach who isn't nearly as good as the award that he has says he should be, but one with potential to grow. As he gets more and more used to doing certain things he may adapt his style. But that style right now is very, very, stripped down and simple. That may work well in the regular season when you face a new team every game and you want consistency from one game to the next. In the playoffs though, it can kill you.
With luck, Bylsma and the rest of the staff can realize that in time, make sure that the team is ready to go, and make a tweak or two to help beat the Flyers. More than likely he'll just make sure they don't let up and hope for the best - which may still be enough. That doesn't mean he's a terrible coach or that we should get rid of him; it just means that he's very limited stylistically right now and needs to be encouraged to adapt.
He's a good coach, look what he's achieved this season? hell the other seasons too...also won Jack Adams for a good reason. But....he's not very smart. Example the "no calling timeouts", unable to adjust. He's been around for 3 years at the NHL level, he needs to start learning.
Since "Disco Dan" took over as coach in 2010 the Pens record on home ice in the playoffs is 4-8 with two Game 7 losses thrown in there. That isn't a sign of a good coach but of one that is probably over his head at this level of hockey.
1. The line matching at home is a joke. Yeah, it's all well and good to get Staal out against Giroux. BUT, if the other team has a five man unit that is designed to shut down Malkin but at the same time is susceptible to the speed of Sid's line, would you be rushing at home to put out Geno's line for a faceoff against that five man unit? As I wrote elsewhere, Lavs did more last night to keep Giroux away from Staal than Bylsma did to keep Malkin away from the Couturier + Grossman-Coburn five man unit. Whether by arrogance or lack of ability, that's just inexcusable bench management.
2. No killer instinct as a coach . . . it's the playoffs. The other team puts out it's fourth line coming out of a TV timeout, then you don't put out your fourth line. You put out a Sid and Geno stacked line. Or, in the second, when you have a chance to go for the kill, you put out Sid and Geno together to keep the pressure up. I just don't get why you treat hockey's two premier offensive weapons as guys who get rolled on lines.
3. At some point, whether it's the players not responding or the coaching per se, the PP falls on Bylsma.
4. As good as the forechecking and breakout is, it's the only tool in the arsenal. There's no mixing up the forecheck. Just balls to the wall or hang back. And, the stretch pass is great if it's part of a series of breakout options, not as the sole option. Heck, look at last year. The Pens tweaked the breakout to deal with the 1-3-1, with the chip coming from the center. Worked great until Tampa adjusted, but that was all Bylsma had in the bag. No matter how brilliant something is, predictability becomes a liability, especially when facing a relatively even match in the playoffs.
5. As a corollary, can you cite a time this year or 2010 when Bylsma, as coach of the favorite with a healthy roster, has made an in game adjustment?
There's just a Steelers like 'we do what we do, so we don't worry about what they do' arrogance to it. I like Bylsma. He seems like a great guy, the type of guy anyone would love as a coach. What he did with this team in the regular season with all the injuries is incredible. BUT, at the end of the day, he isn't paid for the regular season or to be a nice guy. He's paid to win in the playoffs. 2010, the Pens had a tougher series against Ottawa than they should have and then lost to a Montreal team where the coaching deficiency was as bad as the goaltending deficiency. 2011, yeah, the Pens were banged up, but they were up 3-1 and there were no adjustments as the Bolts adjusted to what the Pens were doing. This year, you look at last night's game and wonder what the outcome would've been if, after the first, Lavs the bench boss and in game tactician, had flipped places with Bylsma.
I appreciate that Bylsma is learning. I appreciate all he's done. I appreciate that he almost assuredly isn't going anywhere. And, none of that matters, because he's done more in the last three years to coach the Pens out of the playoffs than to keep them there.
I'm not going to argue anything, but honestly, people need to shut the **** up about timeouts. For 20 years that stuff has driven me nuts.
There's call a timeout for 30 seconds, or wait a shift and get a 2:00 TV timeout to tell your guys to "calm down"
Timeouts are the least of my concerns when it comes to Bylsma.
Look, he can be the nicest guy in the world, the biggest miracle worker in the world in the regular season. Line matching can mean next to nothing. Adjustments can be overrated. The PP can be all the players fault. And, at the end of the day, you've got a coach who you pay to keep you in the playoffs who's done a lot more the last three years to coach you out of them. Playoff results matter, and when you can look at a bad result and say coaching played a role in it, then you've got a problem.
There's no need to over-analyze anything. He tried to sit on a 3 goal lead and got burned. Simple as that.
With respect to last night's game, you're right. But, on a greater level, I still think Bylsma has done more to coach the Pens out of the playoffs the last three seasons than he has to keep them in and see little evidence outside a nice beginning to series twist to the breakout last year (that wasn't adjusted when Tampa adjusted) to suggest otherwise.
With respect to last night's game, you're right. But, on a greater level, I still think Bylsma has done more to coach the Pens out of the playoffs the last three seasons than he has to keep them in and see little evidence outside a nice beginning to series twist to the breakout last year (that wasn't adjusted when Tampa adjusted) to suggest otherwise.
Agreed. Sometimes I wonder if winning the cup in 2009 inflated Bylsma's ego to such a point that he feels that he is always right no matter what the scoreboard says at the end of the game.
I'm not going to argue anything, but honestly, people need to shut the **** up about timeouts. For 20 years that stuff has driven me nuts.
There's call a timeout for 30 seconds, or wait a shift and get a 2:00 TV timeout to tell your guys to "calm down"
People also need to shut the **** up about our defensive zone system. Time and time again people bring it up when it is the least of our concerns. Most of our goals against are a result of miscues in the neutral zone that end up going the other way, not a result of teams dictating the play in our zone. We don't give up many chances there and we certainly don't give up many shots. Give it a rest, ffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRK
5. As a corollary, can you cite a time this year or 2010 when Bylsma, as coach of the favorite with a healthy roster, has made an in game adjustment?
All due respect, you wouldn't recognize an in-game adjustment if you saw one, and if you did, you'd brush it under the rug because it doesn't fit your agenda. When Laviolette uses a timeout that eventually leads to a comeback win he is cited for his brilliance, something he is famous for around here. Last year, we were a poor comeback team under Bylsma, and that was largely used against him despite all of the injury problems we had to overcome. Well, this season we're about as good at mounting comebacks as any team in the league, yet I very rarely hear about that. We're also a poor team with the lead, as our 31-0-3 record going into the third period shows. Then there's those pesky afternoon games that everybody agrees we suck at. Our winning percentage there? A mere .800. I'm not sure our fans have any idea what they're talking about half the time.
What else? Bylsma was chastised for not being able to beat good teams, and not being able to adjust against teams who seemingly had our number. Remember how we couldn't beat the Rangers and Devils? How's that worked out lately? I believe that's 6 wins in a row against those two teams with a lopsided goal differential at that. We've also handled Boston quite well over these last two years where not many teams could. And our record against the ever feared big bad Western Conference? As good as it gets league wide.
Let's be real. No matter what Bylsma does, people are going to ***** and nitpick every minute detail when we're losing. I'm not saying that he's perfect or that I don't have concerns of my own, but I know just as well as anybody that a new coach would just come with his own set of flaws, probably twice as long as Bylsma's, and it would only be a matter of time before they had a laundry list of reasons why we're better off with another coach.
Does anybody remember Jacques Martin, who was lauded by us and the national media for his 'system' that took out two powerhouses in the playoffs? Where is he now? How about Guy Boucher, who barely defeated us with a fully healthy roster and made a miraculous run just short of Stanley Cup finals. How many of you guys were ready to trade Bylsma in for these two tacticians?
Listen, guys. NOBODY likes their coach. Why? Because the only time fans make an attempt to objectively analyze their own coach is when things are going poorly. Thankfully, we have a GM who doesn't share the same shortsightedness that most of us here do. Despite his shortcomings, many of which are greatly exaggerated, he's a top 5 coach in this league at worst, and we'd be ****ing idiots to entertain the thought of finding anybody else.
4. As good as the forechecking and breakout is, it's the only tool in the arsenal. There's no mixing up the forecheck. Just balls to the wall or hang back. And, the stretch pass is great if it's part of a series of breakout options, not as the sole option. Heck, look at last year. The Pens tweaked the breakout to deal with the 1-3-1, with the chip coming from the center. Worked great until Tampa adjusted, but that was all Bylsma had in the bag. No matter how brilliant something is, predictability becomes a liability, especially when facing a relatively even match in the playoffs.
I just read the rest of this post and this is yet another example of you playing to a narrative with absolutely nothing to back it up but hand-waving. Tampa adjusted their system to deal with how we were dumping the puck in, did they? Is that why we continued to get the puck in the zone and outshoot them for the duration of the series? What killed us in that series was special teams, and to a lesser extent goaltending. Get out of here with this nonsense about Boucher adjusting to our dump ins. You don't have **** to support that. Further, how has Boucher's TBL looked against us this year? Why didn't he wave his magical wand and adjust to our game when his team was freefalling out of the playoff picture?
People also need to shut the **** up about our defensive zone system. Time and time again people bring it up when it is the least of our concerns. Most of our goals against are a result of miscues in the neutral zone that end up going the other way, not a result of teams dictating the play in our zone. We don't give up many chances there and we certainly don't give up many shots. Give it a rest, ffs.
All due respect, you wouldn't recognize an in-game adjustment if you saw one, and if you did, you'd brush it under the rug because it doesn't fit your agenda. When Laviolette uses a timeout that eventually leads to a comeback win he is cited for his brilliance, something he is famous for around here. Last year, we were a poor comeback team under Bylsma, and that was largely used against him despite all of the injury problems we had to overcome. Well, this season we're about as good at mounting comebacks as any team in the league, yet I very rarely hear about that. We're also a poor team with the lead, as our 31-0-3 record going into the third period shows. Then there's those pesky afternoon games that everybody agrees we suck at. Our winning percentage there? A mere .800. I'm not sure our fans have any idea what they're talking about half the time.
What else? Bylsma was chastised for not being able to beat good teams, and not being able to adjust against teams who seemingly had our number. Remember how we couldn't beat the Rangers and Devils? How's that worked out lately? I believe that's 6 wins in a row against those two teams with a lopsided goal differential at that. We've also handled Boston quite well over these last two years where not many teams could. And our record against the ever feared big bad Western Conference? As good as it gets league wide.
Let's be real. No matter what Bylsma does, people are going to ***** and nitpick every minute detail when we're losing. I'm not saying that he's perfect or that I don't have concerns of my own, but I know just as well as anybody that a new coach would just come with his own set of flaws, probably twice as long as Bylsma's, and it would only be a matter of time before they had a laundry list of reasons why we're better off with another coach.
Does anybody remember Jacques Martin, who was lauded by us and the national media for his 'system' that took out two powerhouses in the playoffs? Where is he now? How about Guy Boucher, who barely defeated us with a fully healthy roster and made a miraculous run just short of Stanley Cup finals. How many of you guys were ready to trade Bylsma in for these two tacticians?
Listen, guys. NOBODY likes their coach. Why? Because the only time fans make an attempt to objectively analyze their own coach is when things are going poorly. Thankfully, we have a GM who doesn't share the same shortsightedness that most of us here do. Despite his shortcomings, many of which are greatly exaggerated, he's a top 5 coach in this league at worst, and we'd be ****ing idiots to entertain the thought of finding anybody else.
Wow. I couldn't agree more. Well said. To some people, Bylsma will forever be a terrible coach despite every quantifiable measure saying otherwise.
the defense lets up too many easy chances when they aren't trying to tighten up, so i have no problem trying to protect a 3 goal lead
would have worked if not for a blown call
A blown call, a puck that was thrown to the net and pinballed in off Crosby, and then of course the game winning goal which I'm sure is on Lavvy's dry erase board somewhere - "blindly throw the puck to the crease, have Letang deflect it to Voracek for a tap in." Man, that guy is good at coaching hockey games.
I just read the rest of this post and this is yet another example of you playing to a narrative with absolutely nothing to back it up but hand-waving. Tampa adjusted their system to deal with how we were dumping the puck in, did they? Is that why we continued to get the puck in the zone and outshoot them for the duration of the series? What killed us in that series was special teams, and to a lesser extent goaltending. Get out of here with this nonsense about Boucher adjusting to our dump ins. You don't have **** to support that. Further, how has Boucher's TBL looked against us this year? Why didn't he wave his magical wand and adjust to our game when his team was freefalling out of the playoff picture?
1. Those stretch passes to the middle that were chipped in were taken away later in the series. But, you have your narrative.
2. Your long winded answer to complaint #5 asking for ONE adjustment Bylsma has made in the playoffs was long, hyperbolic, and included a lot of words BUT NOT ONE ACTUAL EXAMPLE.
3. Even if every complaint about Bylsma were complete ********, results in the playoffs matter. He's not paid to be a nice guy or a nice regular season coach. He's paid to make a positive contribution in the playoffs. I'm still looking for it since 2009. I'm sure your next long winded answer will include as many examples of such a contribution as the last one.
Maybe this is naive, but my thought about coaches-- any coaches-- is that they look at the players they've got and then put their players into the best possible position to make plays. From there, it's on the players. Maybe they don't make the plays. Maybe they're not good enough.
If someone can look at what Bylsma has done the last three playoffs and tell me what he's done, in terms of defensive zone coverage, the breakout, the PP, and bench management, to put his players into the best possible position to make plays, then I'll be all ears.
But, asserting that he's a top five coach and that he's done a wonderful job dealing with all the injuries the last two regular seasons really doesn't address my question about the playoffs.
The Pens aren't built for the regular season. They're built to win cups. When you've got Sid, Geno, Staal, Letang, and Flower, your goal should be to win the cup every year. Maybe they're built poorly. Maybe there are issues beyond Bylsma's control. I'm not concerned about those as much as I'm concerned about the issues within his control when the playoffs come around.
I'm yet to hear an argument as to why or how he's stood out as a playoff game day coach the last three years, but I'm sure that I'll see plenty of ******** as a substitute for a response, because ******* is the only thing that will pass for a response when the facts suggest otherwise.
1. Those stretch passes to the middle that were chipped in were taken away later in the series. But, you have your narrative.
If they were taken away, which is a claim you can't prove and I can't disprove, it didn't prevent Bylsma from continuing to get in the offensive zone and outshoot the Lightning like he had all series.
Quote:
2. Your long winded answer to complaint #5 asking for ONE adjustment Bylsma has made in the playoffs was long, hyperbolic, and included a lot of words BUT NOT ONE ACTUAL EXAMPLE.
You already provided me with an example when you mentioned that Bylsma started implementing creative chip ins to TB's zone. But that was probably the only one, ever.
Quote:
3. Even if every complaint about Bylsma were complete ********, results in the playoffs matter. He's not paid to be a nice guy or a nice regular season coach. He's paid to make a positive contribution in the playoffs. I'm still looking for it since 2009. I'm sure your next long winded answer will include as many examples of such a contribution as the last one.
How many coaches have been more successful than Bylsma, results wise, since he took over? I'll wait.
A blown call, a puck that was thrown to the net and pinballed in off Crosby, and then of course the game winning goal which I'm sure is on Lavvy's dry erase board somewhere - "blindly throw the puck to the crease, have Letang deflect it to Voracek for a tap in." Man, that guy is good at coaching hockey games.
we're doomed, they're sooo much better
flyersalltheway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
PS dont forget the post. an inch more inside and the game is done
Lavy called a timeout last night after getting down 2-0. A few minutes later, we scored to make it 3-0. I'm all for calling timeouts at appropriate times, but the only time I think Disco could (maybe should) have called one is after they tied it up.
That being said, I agree with many of the posters. This team for some reason reminds me so much of the Steelers. Great talent on paper. Never make adjustments or change anything. And blow leads to inferior teams.
Disco refuses to change anything on a PP that's pathetic. Their defensive 'system' sucks. And I find it hard to believe that the team, collectively, decided on their own after the 1st period to abandon dumping, chasing, and hitting.
I said it last night on here, this team has arguably the two best players on the planet, a top 5 goalie, a top 5 defensmen, and a 40 goal scorer. I'd wager that anyone on this forum could coach this team to the playoffs. But playing good teams in a playoff series, we'd get badly outcoached. Disco may be the same.
The Pens aren't built for the regular season. They're built to win cups. When you've got Sid, Geno, Staal, Letang, and Flower, your goal should be to win the cup every year. Maybe they're built poorly. Maybe there are issues beyond Bylsma's control. I'm not concerned about those as much as I'm concerned about the issues within his control when the playoffs come around.
What the hell are you going on about? He has had a healthy team TWICE heading into the playoffs. The first time he wins a cup, and the second he is a game away from reaching the ECF had it not been for one goalie ******** the bed and the other playing the best series of his life.
I don't have problems with fans who still believe in Bylsma because winning a cup as recently as 2009 will have people still on your side. But these fans have to realize even winning a cup recently only gives you so much room for continued failure especially in the playoffs before ownership and management decide that it just isn't working anymore. Randy Carlyle in Anaheim is the most recent example of this not to mention Laviolette getting fired in Carolina after leading them to a cup in 2006.
If they were taken away, which is a claim you can't prove and I can't disprove, it didn't prevent Bylsma from continuing to get in the offensive zone and outshoot the Lightning like he had all series.
You already provided me with an example when you mentioned that Bylsma started implementing creative chip ins to TB's zone. But that was probably the only one, ever.
How many coaches have been more successful than Bylsma, results wise, since he took over? I'll wait.
Since he took over or since 2009? And, including the regular season or including the playoffs?
Look, whether one thinks Bylsma is the greatest coach or a good coach and whether he won a cup or not in 2009, this has been his staff, his team, his system, and 100% his way since that cup (when he spent the summer implementing his system). And, for as much regular season success as it has brought, for as much over achievement from a number of players as it has brought, his tenure since that cup is marked as much by playoff disappointment as anything else. Really, my two big issues with him are bench management and mixing it up in games in terms of how the team, for example, forechecks and breaks out based on what's working, who's on the ice, etc. Those are things that do expose coaches in the playoffs. So, whether I'm 100% right or spouting 100% ********, the playoff underachievement since 2009 stands, and I don't see how a coach gets a pass, no matter how good he is.
That said, I hope I'm 100% wrong about him as a playoff coach, because I like the Pens chances a lot more than I do if I'm 100% right.
I don't have problems with fans who still believe in Bylsma because winning a cup as recently as 2009 will have people still on your side. But these fans have to realize even winning a cup recently only gives you so much room for continued failure especially in the playoffs before ownership and management decide that it just isn't working anymore. Randy Carlyle in Anaheim is the most recent example of this not to mention Laviolette getting fired in Carolina after leading them to a cup in 2006.
For a team that has won a cup recently and has the core of players that would validate the organization seeing the team as a cup contender every year, I'm not sure how many coaches would survive falling short of even the conference series in three consecutive years, especially if there were things that could be cited (PP, bench management) that you can't even subjectively say aren't on the coach.
For a team that has won a cup recently and has the core of players that would validate the organization seeing the team as a cup contender every year, I'm not sure how many coaches would survive falling short of even the conference series in three consecutive years, especially if there were things that could be cited (PP, bench management) that you can't even subjectively say aren't on the coach.
Handwaving is sure a strength of yours KIRK. Let me just remind you that Crosby and Malkin did not play in last year's playoffs, and that we're one game into this year's playoffs. Essentially, Bylsma has had two opportunities to win the Cup. He's won one, lost the next, and here we are with try #3.
